A DEFENCE OF THOMAS PAINE.

(February, 1879.)

Fling mud enough and some of it will stick. This noble maxim has been the
favorite of traducers in all ages and climes. They know that the object of
their malignity cannot always be on the alert to cleanse himself from the
filth they fling, especially if cast behind his back; they know that lies,
and especially slanderous lies, are hard to overtake, and when caught
harder to strangle; and therefore they feel confident as to the ultimate
fate of their victim if they can only persevere long enough in their vile
policy of defamation. For human nature being more prone to believe evil
than good of others, it generally happens that the original traducers are
at length joined by a host of kindred spirits almost as eager and venomous
as themselves, "the long-neck'd geese of the world, who are ever hissing
dispraise because their natures are little;" while a multitude of others,
not so much malignant as foolish and given to scandal, lend their cowardly
assistance, and help to vilify characters far beyond the reach of their
emulation. And should such characters be those of men who champion
unpopular causes, there is no lie too black for belief concerning them, no
accusation of secret theft or hateful meanness or loathsome lust, that
will not readily gain credence. Mr. Tennyson speaks of—

That fierce light which beats upon a throne,
And blackens every blot

but what is that to the far fiercer and keener light which beats upon the
lives of the great heroes of progress? With all due deference to the Poet
Laureate, we conceive that kings and their kind have usually extended to
them a charity which covers a multitude of their sins. The late king of
Italy, for instance, was said to have had "the language of a guardroom,
the manners of a trooper, and the morals of a he-goat," yet at his death
how tenderly his faults were dealt with by the loyal press, and how
strongly were all his merits brought into relief. Our own royal
Sardanapalus, George the Fourth, although Leigh Hunt had the courage to
describe him aright and went to the gaol for so doing, was styled by
Society "the first gentleman in Europe." Yet Mazzini, Vittor Emmanuel's
great contemporary, whose aims were high and noble as his life was pure,
got little else than abuse from this same loyal press; and the Society
which adored George the Fourth charged Shelley himself with unspeakable
vices equalled only by the native turpitude of his soul.

Perhaps no man has suffered more from calumny than Thomas Paine. During
his lifetime, indeed, his traducers scarcely ever dared to vent their
malice in public, doubtless through fear of receiving a castigation from
his vigorous and trenchant pen. But after his death they rioted in safety,
and gave free play to the ingenuity of their malevolence. Gradually their
libels became current; thousands of people who knew almost nothing of his
life and less of his writings were persuaded that Thomas Paine, "the
Infidel," was a monster of iniquity, in comparison with whom Judas
appeared a saint, and the Devil himself nearly white; and this estimate
finally became a tradition, which the editors of illustrated religious
papers and the writers of fraudulent "Death-Bed Scenes" did their best to
perpetuate. In such hands the labor of posthumous vilification might have
remained without greatly troubling those who feel an interest in Thomas
Paine's honor through gratitude for his work. The lowest scavengers of
literature, who purvey religious offal to the dregs of orthodoxy, were
better employed thus than in a reverse way, since their praise is so very
much more dishonorable and appalling than their blame. But when other
literary workmen of loftier repute descend to the level of these, and help
them in their villainous task, it becomes advisable that some one who
honors the memory of the man thus aspersed should interpose, and attempt
that vindication which he can no longer make for himself.

In reviewing Mr. Edward Smith's "Life of Cobbett," our principal literary
paper, the Athenaeum, in its number for January 11th, went out of its way
to defame Paine's character. This is what it said:—

"A more despicable man than Tom Paine cannot easily be found among the
ready writers of the eighteenth century. He sold himself to the highest
bidder, and he could be bought at a very low price. He wrote well;
sometimes he wrote as pointedly as Junius or Cobbett. Neither excelled him
in coining telling and mischievous phrases; neither surpassed him in
popularity-hunting. He had the art, which was almost equal to genius, of
giving happy titles to his productions. When he denounced the British
Government in the name of 'Common Sense' he found willing readers in the
rebellious American colonists, and a rich reward from their grateful
representatives. When he wrote on behalf of the 'Rights of Man,' and in
furtherance of the 'Age of Reason,' he convinced thousands by his
title-pages who were incapable of perceiving the inconclusiveness of his
arguments. His speculations have long since gone the way of all shams; and
his charlatanism as a writer was not redeemed by his character as a man.
Nothing could be worse than his private life; he was addicted to the most
degrading of vices. He was no hypocrite, however, and he cannot be charged
with showing that regard for appearances which constitutes the homage paid
by vice to virtue. Such a man was well qualified for earning notoriety by
insulting Washington. Only a thorough-paced rascal could have had the
assurance to charge Washington with being unprincipled and unpatriotic.
Certainly Mr. Smith has either much to learn, or else he has forgotten
much, otherwise he could not venture to suggest the erection of a monument
'recording the wisdom and political virtues of Thomas Paine.'"

Now we have in this tirade all the old charges, with a new one which the
critic has either furnished himself or derived from an obscure source—namely,
that Paine "sold himself to the highest bidder." Let us examine the last
charge first. The critic curiously contradicts himself. Paine, he admits,
could "sometimes write as pointedly as Junius or Cobbett," whose works
sold enormously, and he had the art of devising happy titles for his
productions; yet, although he sold himself to the highest bidder, he could
be bought at a very low price! The fact is, Paine was never bought at all.
His was not a hireling pen. Whatever he wrote he put his name to, and he
never parted with the copyright of any of his works, lest the Government
or some friend of despotism should procure their suppression. He also
published his writings at a ridiculously low price, so low indeed that he
lost by them instead of gaining. Of his "Common Sense," that fine pamphlet
which stirred the American colonists to battle against their oppressors,
not less than a hundred thousand copies were sold; yet he found himself
finally indebted to his printer £29 12s. 1d. Fifteen years later the
English Government tried through the publisher to get the copyright of the
"Rights of Man;" but though a large sum was offered, Paine refused on
principle to let it pass out of his own hands. The first part of this work
was published at a price which precluded any chance of profit; the
publication of the second part caused him to be tried and condemned for
treason, the penalty of the law being escaped only by flight. All
publication of his works, whether political or religious, was afterwards
illegal. Thousands of copies were circulated surreptitiously, or openly by
men like Richard Carlile, who spent nine years in prison for his sale of
prohibited books. But clearly Paine could derive no profit from this
traffic in his works, for he never set foot in England again. Thomas Paine
wrote in order to spread his political and religious views, and for no
other purpose. He was not a professional author, nor a professional
critic, and never needed payment for his literary work. And assuredly he
got none. Let the Athenaeum critic inform the world to whom Paine
sold himself, or who ever paid him a penny for his writings. Until he does
so we shall believe that the author of "Common Sense," the "Rights of
Man," and the "Age of Reason," was honest in saying: "In a great affair,
where the good of mankind is at stake, I love to work for nothing; and so
fully am I under the influence of this principle, that I should lose the
spirit, the pride, and the pleasure of it, were I conscious that I looked
for reward."

Popularity-hunting, to use the critic's graceless phrase, was Paine's next
fault; but as, according to the same authority, he was guilty in this
respect only in the same sense as Junius was, the burden of his iniquity
cannot be very great.

Addiction to the most degrading of vices, is a charge difficult to confute
until we know specifically what vice is meant. Paine has been accused of
drunkenness; but by whom? Not by his intimate acquaintances, who would
have detected his guilt, but by his enemies who were never in his society,
and therefore could know nothing of his habits. Cheetham, who first
disseminated this accusation, was a notorious libeller, and was more than
once compelled to make a public apology for his lies; but he was a
shameless creature, and actually in his "Life" of Paine resuscitated and
amplified falsehoods for which he had tendered abject apologies while his
victim was alive. Even, however, if Paine had yielded to the seductions of
strong drink, he should be judged by the custom of his own age, and not
that of ours.

Mr. Leslie Stephen does not rail against Boswell for his drinking powers;
Burns is not outlawed for his devotion to John Barlycorn; Byron and
Sheridan are not beyond pardon because they often went drunk to bed; and
some of the greatest statesmen of last century and this, including Pitt
and Fox, are not considered the basest of men because they exercised that
right which Major O'Gorman claims for all Irishmen—"to drink as much
as they can carry." But no such plea is necessary, for Paine was not
addicted to drink, but remarkably abstemious. Mr. Fellows, with whom he
lived for more than six months, said that he never saw him the worse for
drink. Dr. Manley said, "while I attended him he never was inebriated."
Colonel Burr said, "he was decidedly temperate." And even Mr. Jarvis, whom
Cheetham cited as his authority for charging Paine with drunkenness,
authorised Mr. Vale, of New York, editor of the Beacon, to say that
Cheetham lied. Amongst the public men who knew Paine personally
were Burke, Home Tooke, Priestley, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, Dr. Moore,
Jefferson, Washington, Volney and Condorcet: but none of these ever hinted
at his love of drink. The charge of drunkeness is a posthumous libel,
circulated by a man who had publicly quarrelled with Paine, who had been
obliged to apologise for former aspersions, and who after Paine's death
was prosecuted and condemned for libelling a lady whom he had
accused of undue familiarity with the principal object of his malice.

Finding the charge of drunkenness unequivocally rebutted, Paine's
traducers advance that of licentiousness. But this is equally
unsuccessful. The authority relied on is still Cheetham, who in turn
borrowed from a no less disreputable source. A man named Carver had
quarrelled with Paine over money matters; in fact, he had been obliged
with a loan which he forgot to pay, and like all base natures he showed
his gratitude to his benefactor, when no more favors could be expected, by
hating and maligning him. A scurrilous letter written by this fellow fell
into the hands of Cheetham, who elaborated it in his "Life." It broadly
hinted that Madame Bonneville, the by no means youthful wife of a Paris
bookseller who had sheltered Paine when he was threatened with danger in
that city, was his paramour; for no other reason than that he had in turn
sheltered her when she repaired with her children to America, after her
home had been broken up by Buonaparte's persecution of her husband. This
lady prosecuted Cheetham for libel, and a jury of American citizens gave
her a verdict and damages.

Here the matter might rest, but we are inclined to urge another
consideration. No one of his many enemies ever accused Paine of
licentiousness in his virile manhood; and can we believe that he began a
career of licentiousness in his old age, when, besides the infirmities
natural to his time of life, he suffered dreadful tortures from an
internal abscess brought on by his confinement in the reeking dungeons of
the Luxembourg, which made life a terror and death a boon? Only lunatics
or worse would credit such a preposterous story.

The Athenaeum critic alleges that Paine insulted Washington, and was
therefore a "thorough-paced rascal." But he did nothing of the kind. He
very properly remonstrated with Washington for coolly allowing him to rot
in a French dungeon for no crime except that he was a foreigner, when a
word from the President of the United States, of which he was a citizen,
would have effected his release. Washington was aware of Paine's miserable
plight, yet he forgot the obligations of friendship; and notwithstanding
frequent letters from Munro, the American ambassador at Paris, he supinely
suffered the man he had once delighted to honor to languish in
wretchedness, filth, and disease. George Washington did much for American
Independence, but Thomas Paine did perhaps more, for his writings animated
the oppressed Colonists with an enthusiasm for liberty without which the
respectable generalship of Washington might have been exerted in vain. The
first President of the United States was, as Carlyle grimly says, "no
immeasurable man," and we conceive that Paine had earned the right to
criticise even him and his policy.

Every person is of course free to hold what opinion he pleases of Paine's
writings. The Athenaeum critic thinks they have "gone the way of all
shams." He is wrong in fact, for they circulate very extensively still.
And he may also be wrong in his literary judgment. William Hazlitt, whose
opinion on any subject connected with literature is at least as valuable
as an Athenaeum critic's, ranked Paine very high as a political
writer, and affirmed of his "Rights of Man" that it was "a powerful and
explicit reply to Burke." But Hazlitt had read Paine, which we suspect
many glib critics of to-day have not; for we well remember how puzzled
some of them were to explain whence Shelley took the motto "We pity the
Plumage, but Forget the Dying Bird" prefixed to his Address to the People
on the death of the Princess Charlotte. It was taken, as they should have
known, from one of the finest passages of the "Rights of Man." Critics, it
is well known, sometimes write as Artemus Ward proposed to lecture on
science, "with an imagination untrammeled by the least knowledge of the
subject."

Let us close this vindication of Paine by citing the estimate of him
formed by Walt Whitman, an authority not to be sneered at now even by Athenaeum
critics. In 1877 the Liberal League of Philadelphia celebrated the 140th
birthday of Thomas Paine, and a large audience was gathered by the
announcement that Whitman would speak. The great poet, according to the Index
report, after telling how he had become intimate with some of Paine's
friends thirty-five years before, went on to say:—

"I dare not say how much of what our Union is owning and enjoying to-day,
its independence, its ardent belief in, and substantial practice of,
Radical human rights, and the severance of its Government from all
ecclesiastical and superstitious dominion—I dare not say how much of
all this is owing to Thomas Paine; but I am inclined to think a good
portion of it decidedly is. Of the foul and foolish fictions yet told
about the circumstances of his decease, the absolute fact is that, as he
lived a good life after its kind, he died calmly, philosophically, as
became him. He served the embryo Union with the most precious service, a
service that every man, woman, and child in the thirty-eight States is to
some extent receiving the benefit of to-day, and I for one here cheerfully
and reverently throw one pebble on the cairn of his memory."

We are content to let the reader decide between Whitman and the Athenaeum
critic in their respective estimates of him who wrote, and as we think
acted up to it—"All the world is my country, and to do good my
religion."